logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.21 2015가단5229184
부동산 인도 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) KRW 648,00,000 (contract deposit amounting to KRW 64,80,000, the remainder of KRW 583,200,00, the remainder of KRW 583,200,000, the remainder of KRW 20,000, and KRW 20,000,000, from the Defendant established for the purpose of real estate leasing business, for the following reasons: (a) part (a) of [Attachment 1,2,4,5,6,7, and 1] among the underground floors of the building listed in the attached table of real estate among the primary floors listed in the attached table of real estate; and (b) from December 1, 2014 to November 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant stores”).

D. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that, with the content certification of December 3, 2014 (hereinafter “the first notification”), it would be possible to terminate the instant lease agreement and confiscate the down payment if it would be possible to terminate the lease contract, and if it does not live within two months from the commencement date of the lease.

Consolidatedly, the Defendant again notified the Plaintiff of the content certification of December 29, 2014 (hereinafter “the second notification”) that “the entire contract amount that was terminated and paid” was confiscated, and that it reached the Plaintiff around that time.

After that, on February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff was notified that the Plaintiff would confiscate the down payment as a penalty upon cancelling the instant lease agreement, by failing to implement a preparatory plan for selling the store in C102, such as the brand attracting of the Blus complex brand and the payment of the deposit for rental deposit. In addition, on March 9, 2015, the instant lease agreement was terminated on or before December 30, 2014 when the second notice was served, and thereafter returned KRW 583,20,000, which was remitted thereafter, and thereafter, the former account was returned to the Plaintiff on March 25, 2015, but the Plaintiff was deposited as 6351 of this Court on March 25, 2015 as the ground for recognition was without any dispute. The entire number of pleadings is included as evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, 16, and 2.

arrow